Asclepius

@GeoffreyBrent Actually it is aimed at detecting bad bosses and bad HR. I believe in good faith that avoiding working for a bad boss or bad HR is in the best interest of the candidate. For this reason, I don't need to change my answer. The original question made no mention of optimizing for getting the job alone. No clarification is warranted.

@GeoffreyBrent Behavioral questions exist for gamesmanship as instructed in the accepted answer. No smart candidate should ever reply them honestly or truthfully. This is why they should be stopped. You still don't get it. They're not the detector of a bad personality that you think they are, but I can see that you sure would like to conveniently continue to believe that they are.

@GeoffreyBrent Apologies. Yes, by "smart", I mean a candidate who desperately wants to get hired despite the risk of an incompatible long-term outcome and a loss of personal honor.

@GeoffreyBrent I highly advise finding another forum for your continued harassment, otherwise we will have to escalate the situation. You've already made your point. I even upvoted your first comment. If you're looking to check off some boxes, you don't need a candidate for it.

@GeoffreyBrent As I see it here for the overall question, in your comments for multiple answers, you've demonstrated that you enjoy harassing me and other authors of answers. Is it not sufficient for you to downvote them and post one critical comment? I can only imagine that the interviews you conduct are a breeding ground for such harassment, including with pointless behav. questions designed to show who's boss. In fact, my answer here is a lot more genuine than the accepted answer. It is the accepted answer which instructs best on gamesmanship. Mine instructs on maintaining personal honor.

@yshavit I have now removed the "50%" statement from the answer.

@penelope Interview structures vary significantly. There is no hard requirement of asking two token questions at the end for the sake of it; in fact it's generally a farce to do so. Tit-for-tat is hardly petty and spiteful; it's the most tightly calibrated strategy that exists. What you seem to be suggesting is to allow the interviewer to walk all over the candidate. If the candidate is rude in asking the questions, how is it that the interviewer is not also rude in asking the same questions?

Post on Google Maps too, not just on Glassdoor, just the facts and nothing but the facts. A lot more readers read Google Maps than Glassdoor.